SHANKAR KRISHNA NIRKHE Vs. TAXING OFFICER DISTRICT TREASURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validity of the Madhya Pradesh Finance Act, 1938 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and seeks writs of certiorari for quashing four notices of demand asking him to pay Rs. 41.67, Rs.100, Rs.50 and again Rs. 50 as 'profession' tax for the years 1957-58, 1958-59, 1961-62 and 1962-63 respectively.

(2.) SHRI Choudhari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while assailing the validity of the Act, submitted that the Act merely levied a profession-tax at the rates specified in the Schedule to the Act for each financial year on persons falling in the category mentioned in section 3 of the Act; that it did not contain any provision for determination and assessment of the tax; and that it did not provide for the lodging and hearing of objections by persons held to be liable to tax under section 3 and did not also contain any provision with regard to appeals against the orders of assessment. Learned counsel mainly relied on the observations of the Supreme Court contained in paragraph-9 of the majority judgment in K.T. Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala(AIR 1961 SC 552).

(3.) IT is also not correct to say that there is no provision for appeals or revisions against the orders of assessment. Sub-section (1) of section 9 distinctly says that any person, who has been informed of his liability to pay the tax under the Act or who is otherwise aggrieved by an order passed under the Act or the rules made thereunder, may, within thirty days from the date of the receipt by him of the information or the order, make an appeal to the authorities mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of section 9 (1). The appellate authorities mentioned are the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner. Learned counsel suggested that as no Deputy Commissioner had been appointed, section 9 (1) was altogether ineffective. This argument overlooks the fact that the expression "Deputy Commissioner", as used in section 9 (1), means the Collector of the district. When the Act was enacted in 1938 the Revenue Officer in charge of a district was known in the Mahakoshal region as "Deputy Commissioner". By clause 4-A, added to the Madhya Pradesh Adaptation of Laws (State and Concurrent Subjects) Order, 1956 (published in the Gazette dated the 10th May 1957), the "Deputy Commissioner" is now renamed as Collector'. Sub-section (2) of section 9 provides that any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (1) may within forty-five days from the date of the receipt by him of the order apply to the State Government, or to such authority as the Government may appoint in that behalf, for revision of the order. Rules 17 and 18 lay down the procedure for the filing of appeals and revisions and for their hearing. Thus it is idle to contend that a person, who has been held liable by the taxing officer to pay the tax, has no remedy of appeal or revision against the order of assessment.